Removes a user account from OpenWISP using its UUID or ID, enabling administrators to revoke access and clean up user records via the REST API.
[Category: Users & Auth] Delete a user account from OpenWISP. (HTTP DELETE /api/v1/users/user/{id}/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | UUID or ID of the user to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't state whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether it cascades to related objects, or what the response looks like—significant gaps for a deletion tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Compact and front-loaded—the category tag, action, and endpoint are packed into two short fragments with no waste. Slightly terse, but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the invocation essentials are covered. However, with zero annotations and no output schema, it omits the consequences of the call and the return behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'id' as 'UUID or ID of the user to remove'. The endpoint string ({id}) corroborates but adds nothing new; baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a user account from OpenWISP') and even names the HTTP endpoint, so an agent immediately knows this removes a user. It is distinguishable from list/get/create user siblings, though it doesn't name them explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), and no warning about confirming destructive intent. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.